Recent Comments

I actually thought, based on the title, that the "player practice equipment" thread had something to with the shoe-selling issue or procedures for inventorying equipment related to that. I wasn't interested in that topic, so didn't click on it until I came to this thread and saw what it was really about.

I agree this is true in many fields. But you are overlooking the importance of credentials in the modern job market. As has been pointed out above, if you want a decent job these days, you almost certainly need a bachelor's degree and there's a good chance you need a post-graduate degree as well. Can you still read and study things for your own personal enrichment and learn a comparable amount? Often, yes you can--though often you cannot. But even when you can, independent study outside a degree program is not going to produce a credential that will enable you to compete for employment in that field. That's especially true in licensed professions like law or medicine--if you don't have the degree, you can't get the license, no matter how much independent learning you may have done.

Given the importance of such credentials in the 21st century job market, promoting opportunity and upward mobility requires that we ensure broad access to those credentials. We provide public funding for K-12 education because in the past, a high school diploma was an adequate credential for most purposes--as well as the extensive benefits an educated populace provides in an industrial democracy. But times have changed. A college degree now is the approximate equivalent to what a high school diploma once was. So the argument for publicly-funded college education (or "free college," as you have deemed it) is that requiring students to pay ungodly amounts of tuition for the basic credential needed to secure decent employment in the modern economy stifles upward mobility and denies economic opportunities to working-class and indeed many middle-class young people. You can agree or disagree with that argument if you want, but it's far from a frivolous position and at any rate is not vulnerable to any claim that "well you can just read shit on your own."

I am looking forward to OSU deciding not to fire Meyer and hgb4529 coming back to mgoblog with quality posts like "Ha ha ha, I told you we would get to keep our lying, wife-beater-harboring coach. Go Bucks!"

I think the largest financial risk is definitely from Meyer, at least in terms of lawsuits. If they fire him without cause they are on the hook for a $38 million buyout, and $38 million seems like way more than Smith could realistically recover in a lawsuit even if she could establish some kind of liability (which seems very questionable to me, but obviously we don't have all the facts). I don't know if the reputational harm could approach or exceed that in terms of foregone donations, but it at least seems possible if, say, OSU has a Stephen Ross type alum who decides not to write a check for a new business school or something like that.

Yes, when I saw that former prosecutors are on the committee, that's what gave me some shred of confidence that it won't just be a whitewash.

Also, MSU had a supposedly "outside" investigation that was quite transparently designed to shield Dantonio. As long as it's OSU initiating the investigation, ultimately some insider (or team of insiders) will be the ones choosing the investigator and giving the marching orders. So unless you have some outside entity (like a DOJ/Title IX official or the NCAA) bringing the investigation, it seems to me that the integrity and interests of the people on the committee are going to be more important than whether they are "insiders" or "outsiders."

Yes, though I kind of think if McMurphy had anything more substantive he would have put it out by now. He is a journalist, after all.

Of course, it's also possible that McMurphy has information that isn't really significant right now, but contradicts something that Meyer or OSU hasn't been said yet or that comes out of the investigation. So if OSU is thinking about calling his bluff, they had better be very careful.

I don't know. But I was responding to your assertion that there was nothing but "circumstantial evidence and hearsay" to prove that Meyer had lied to cover up his failure to take action on Smith--which Meyer himself admitted to doing on Friday.

Uh, did you not see Meyer's own Tweet in which he claimed to have reported the 2015 incidents to his superiors and apologized for failing to answer the questions about it honestly at the Big Ten media days?

I know you're a troll and I really shouldn't respond, but I will anyway.

First, Perry's offense was not really "sexual abuse" in my opinion, if it was it was a very borderline case. He cut in line at an East Lansing bar and then got into some kind of confrontation with a woman who did not approve. He reportedly menaced and intimidated her, which was awful, but he didn't sexually assault her and this wasn't a DV scenario.

Second, what Grant Perry did was nonetheless pretty bad and there are lots of opinions about whether the punishment Harbaugh imposed was sufficient. He was suspended for eight months and missed a bowl game, spring practice, and the Italy trip. Many here thought this wasn't enough and that Perry should have been dismissed from the team. But it's ultimately a judgment call and reasonable minds can differ on the correct response. There is no reason to think Harbaugh didn't take the situation as seriously as necessary and impose the sanctions he felt were most appropriate in light of the facts and circumstances. If people don't agree with that, fine--but that doesn't make Harbaugh a bad guy or establish grounds to question his character or integrity.

Third, the one player who committed an actual "sexual abuse" type of offense since Harbaugh has been at M, Logan Tuley-Tillman, was dismissed from the program immediately. And LTT's one-time offense (recording consensual sex without permission and transmitting it to his phone), despite its sexual nature, was not even in the ballpark of Zach Smith's serial DV.

Fourth, there is no indication that Harbaugh failed to comply with any law or university policy in connection with any of these incidents.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, Harbaugh hasn't lied about these incidents (or his handling of them) to the media. That's what ultimately makes Meyer a shitbag. See, if he'd fucked up his handling of Zach Smith but was at least honest about it and said things that indicated he'd recognized his mistakes and learned from them, then Meyer could perhaps be viewed as a well-intentioned coach who'd screwed up a difficult situation. But lying to the media shows that Meyer holds the rights and interests of others in contempt--that he's not a good guy, but just a selfish a-hole looking out for #1. You can say he doesn't deserve to be fired over this, and likely cherry-pick enough tidbits of information to justify that to yourself. But in the end, you really only care about winning football games, even if your coach is a lying a-hole. And since enough people at OSU probably feel the same way, you just might get to keep him. But that doesn't make him a "good guy."

Dantonio at Ohio State would be Tressel 2.0, IME. He'd have an outstanding defense, run a conservative offense, and get 90% of his talent from Ohio. That's still a formidable program, but it's not the beast Meyer has going.

Ohio State is always going to recruit at a very high level, but Urban Meyer is one of the only coaches anywhere in college football who instantly gives OSU a shot with almost any prospect anywhere in the country. If they fire him, then OSU will likely hang onto most of the players they have signed for the upcoming class, but over time I think we'll see at least a little bit of a decline in their recruiting--still consistently within the top-10, but not necessarily the top-3 anymore.

If they keep him around, even with a suspension, I imagine the machine will just keep rolling. Even if he misses out on the occasional prospect who doesn't trust him or doesn't want to play for a coach with his stained reputation, it's hard to see that having a significant effect.

An assault occurs when a person is put in fear of an imminent, unwanted contact, even if there is no contact. Even if Perry never touched her, his threats and taunts could have been enough on their own for assault. And while there may have been conflicting evidence, Perry ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault & battery, which establishes (for legal purposes, at least) both that he committed an assault and that there was contact (i.e., the battery).

I agree with this. But it's not clear what Meyer is claiming his supposed report consisted of. If he made the report by email or filed some kind of form or something, then there absolutely should be a record. But what if he claims he reported it by phone? Then there's only a record if the person he spoke with made one. Even if the policy requires a written report, now we're talking about more of a technical violation (reporting by phone, rather than in writing). And, of course, the big questions then would be about whether that phone call was ever even made--and if so, to whom and what exactly was said.

But I will say, I always appreciated how Tommy Amaker cleaned up M's hoops program and I'm still a fan of the guy even though he never got us to the NCAAs. It's tough, but at some point you do have to say, "thanks, but we'd like to win now."

I don't know enough about the Randy Shannon situation to say whether he got a fair chance to prove himself at the U, but his Wikipedia page shows he went 9-4 and 7-5 his last two seasons there and only got 4 years overall. Granted, it's probably easier to win in football at Miami than hoops at Michigan but that still seems like a pretty quick hook. Amaker got six years.

First of all, Meyer is ultimately a state employee and has a right to some due process before he is terminated.

Second, Meyer has a huge contract and if OSU fires him without good cause they will be on the hook for millions of dollars in future salary.

Third, while there is extensive evidence that Meyer knew of Zach Smith's abusive behavior and failed to take the actions required by university policy to address it, there are also plenty of unknowns. For instance, we don't know exactly when Meyer became aware of Smith's post-2009 abuse, or how he found out, or what (if any) steps he did take to address the conduct. Part of the reason we don't know is because Meyer denied being told about the abuse at Big Ten media days--which now appears to have been an obvious falsehood. But the point remains that there are many unanswered questions here and it's prudent for OSU to investigate them and try and put together a more complete picture of what happened before coming to a final decision.

Fourth, what's the rush? Meyer is already on administrative leave, so he isn't coaching the team and isn't in a position to commit additional wrongdoings.

It makes not sense that Courtney Smith was suffering in silence for many years and said nothing publicly because she feared even more violent retribution from Zach.

Again, as you yourself pointed out above, she (i) reported ZS' conduct to the police, (ii) obtained a protection order (which requires her to have testified about the conduct to the court under oath);, and (iii) filed a divorce proceeding, which more than likely also contained allegations of domestic violence. As you did not point out, she also directly informed Shelley Meyer about the abuse, and in discussing it with Lindsey Voltolini, was told that ZS denied the allegations to Urban Meyer (thus giving CS every reason to believe that Urban Meyer had been informed of the allegations).

And so yes, your premise that "Courtney Smith was suffering in silence" does not make sense--because the essential facts of the scenario show that she was very vocal about her suffering.

Courtney Smith's entire course of conduct has changed 180 degrees since Zach was fired ... why is she becoming such a media figure now?

Again, this is totally irrelevant. Courtney Smith's behavior is not at issue. Courtney Smith's reasons for "becoming a media figure" are not at issue. Assuming she is telling the truth--and seeing as her statements are corroborated by extensive text messages and other documentation there really is no serious doubt on that point--then what difference does it make why she has chosen to share this information or why she may have not been public about it in the past? Your insinuation that she must have some kind of improper motive is baseless, and even if she does have an improper motive, that still doesn't change the fact that Urban failed to handle the situation property and then lied about it.

Meyer is on paid administrative leave because of his own acts and omissions, and if he winds up being fired then him will have only himself to blame. That this never would have happened if CS hadn't spoken up about it is neither here nor there.

Are you just conveniently ignoring the fact that she texted Meyer's wife and other people associated with the program about the abuse?

Besides, as you've acknowledged, Courtney Smith reported the abuse to the police, obtained a protection order, and got a divorce. These are the things a DV survivor would normally do to protect herself from further abuse. Trying to get the abuser fired from his job has nothing to do with that, so the fact that she "didn't do what could have been done to get Zach fired by OSU" is irrelevant.

Another factor here is that Meyer lied about his knowledge of the 2015 assaults at the Big Ten media day. Maybe she felt the lie made her look bad, or maybe she feels an obligation to set the public record straight, or maybe it just pissed her off, whatever--but if Meyer hadn't denied knowing about the 2015 incidents then there would neither have been any need for McMurphy to interview her about whether Meyer knew or not, nor any lie for her to expose.

It's like Buckeye John Ross said. Meyer was dealt a shitty hand, but Meyer made it worse by not handling it by the book and then really screwed himself by lying about it. Armchair quarterbacking what Courtney Smith did or didn't do is really beside the point.

My first job out of law school was at a small personal injury firm, and we had this case where a lady had gotten a pretty bad case of food poisoning from a Taco Bell chicken burrito. So I call her up to get some details about the case, and she informs me that she only ate half the burrito and kept the other half in her freezer for "analysis." (This is months afterward, mind you.). I'm like, "yeah, we're probably not really going to be able to have the burrito analyzed.." But she wasn't satisfied with that, so a week later she shows up the my office with the thawed burrito in hand and insists I take it to some kind of lab.

I do think, in the abstract that pressuring Courtney Smith not to press charges was a worse action than declining to fire Zach Smith. But Meyer declined to fire Smith in 2015, after he'd exhibited a long history of abuse, whereas in 2009 appears to have been at least some plausible idea that the abuse was a one-time thing and that Zach could get counseling and not do it again. So which one is worse? Beats me.

Meyer is a very good in-gme coach, but his real value seems to be in building and sustaining that program. He's always had a great eye for assistant coach talent--so when one assistant would leave, he's always been able to find a great new assistant as a replacement. He's always been able to recruit good players. He's always ran schemes that are easy to teach and that work well in the college game. It was one thing when he was at BGSU and Utah; now that he's accumulated wins and championships and taken over powerhouse programs like Florida and OSU, he has cache that makes all these benefits seem to come to him even more easily--top assistants are happy to come work for him, top talent is eager to play for him.

If Meyer is fired, it's unlikely his replacement will function quite as well in all of these areas. The new coach may be less reliable in selecting the best assistants, or may not work well with certain key people on staff. The new coach might not have as good an eye for talent, or may want to impose new schemes that don't work as well as Meyer's have. The new coach probably won't have multiple NCAA rings and a gaudy winning percentage like Meyer does, and thus might have to work a little bit harder to attract top out-of-state talent. And if OSU doesn't win at the same level right away, things could get harder rather than easier.

This kind of decline, however, would probably occur gradually over multiple seasons. Barring some kind of player exodus or staff drama, Meyer's absence probably gives M only a slightly better chance of winning The Game in 2018. They still have all the same players and all the same assistants. As strong of a team as M will have in 2018, I still think OSU would have to be favored at the Horseshoe as of yesterday, and I'm not convinced that changes with Meyer gone.

I used to work in a place where a colleague had sexually harassed several female colleagues. He was reprimanded by the management (not me), but wasn't fired. Plenty of people on the staff, including me, thought he should have been. While lots of people on staff knew about this situation, it wasn't exactly something we broadcast to the outside world. The harasser guy is still employed at the organization.

I now work at a different place. Am I somehow tainted by the fact that I used to work at a different job where sexual harassment occurred and probably wasn't dealt with adequately? Should I be telling my new employer or funders or the media about the situation at my old job? If the situation at the old job is somehow uncovered, do I have 'splainin' to do?

I think Warinner is in a pretty similar spot. He's not responsible for what Smith did. Whether he agreed or disagreed with how Meyer handled the situation, that was Meyer's call and not Warinner's. He's not tainted by any past knowledge, and didn't have any duty--legal or moral--to take any other action as far as I can tell.

It seems like Taylor's most likely path to the field is if he could become some kind of short-yardage specialist. Like, if he could get really good at pass protection, become an effective receiver, and develop the ability to burrow out tough yards against stacked fronts. Sort of a Vincent Smith 2.0. Or the old man version of Leroy Hoard (who said "if you need one yard, I'll get you three--if you need five yards, I'll get you three").

He's not going to play ahead of guys like Higdon and Evans, because--especially as a redshirt freshman--he's not going to offer any combination of skills that's better than what M can get out of Higdon or Evans in any conceivable situation.. But Higdon and Evans won't be here forever, and Taylor should improve as the years go by. He could potentially have a role later on if he presents a combination of skills that exceeds what the other backs can offer in any particular scenario.

For example, maybe in a couple years M might have backs who can grind out tough yards but are lousy blockers and receivers, and then backs who can block & catch but can't get a tough yard between the tackles. If Taylor can do all those things, maybe he's the guy who comes in to bang out the first down on 3rd & 1 or score the vulture TD or catch the throwback screen.

This seems like the critical passage from the Football Outsiders link:

"Speed Score measures speed in the context of strength and power. It doesn't measure agility, receiving ability or any of the other aspects related to the position. It does not claim that a larger player with a higher 40 time is somehow faster than a smaller player with a lower 40 time thanks to the power of exponentiation. Speed Score is useful because it's beneficial for a running back to be both fast and large."

It seems like the Speed Score could be a slightly helpful way of assessing whether a big RB has "enough" speed, or whether a small RB is fast enough to compensate for his lack of size--assuming, of course, that assumes the weights and 40-times you're using are reliable, that the bigger backs are heavier because of muscle rather than fat, etc. But at most this is going to be one data point in a sea of factors (vision, hands (both for ball security and receiving), blocking ability, attitude, football IQ, agility, stamina, and so on).

It would be one thing if having a high Speed Score was consistently correlated with being a successful RB and that having a low Speed Score was consistently correlated with a lack of success. But the examples given show both that some unsuccessful backs had high Speed Scores and that some highly successful backs had low scores. So it really tends to look like an arbitrary measurement IMO.

I remember there was one year back during Mario Lemieux's prime that somebody slashed him and broke his hand during the playoffs. I don't know if this is how the rule against slashing the stick came about, but I wonder if this is kind of like the old "halo rule" on punt returns where in order to prevent one thing (pre-catch hits on defenseless punt returners, hand injuries from stick-slashes), you prohibit anything even approaching it (being too close to the returner before the catch, slashing the stick)?